Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House—I was told to say that, but I usually forget what I am told. May I first pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) when he suggested that I made a Freudian slip by using the word ““wild””? I did not. My use of the word was intentional, not Freudian, and the word was taken directly from the very Hobhouse report that set the criteria for the 1949 Act, which referred to wild areas and wild moorland. I did not use the word ““wilderness””, as he suggested. The principal issue is obviously a matter of interpretation. There is a question of whether Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 33 take the criteria further than simply reverting back to those in the 1949 Act, as subsequently amended—in other words, before the Meyrick judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) rightly referred to the south downs, and it is widely believed that the purpose of the Government amendments is to reopen the south downs issue. That is a matter for my hon. Friend and others who represent the area to debate another time, but as my hon. Friends have said, it is worrying that the Government are acting in a bit of a rush. I do not know whether the Minister can shed any light on when the appeal will be heard, but it would be perfectly sensible to wait for its outcome. I am worried to hear the Minister say that if the Lords amendments are passed and the Bill gets Royal Assent in the next few days, he will have to think again about the appeal. He implies—I am putting words in his mouth, but I think that most people understood this—that the appeal may then be dropped. That would be a serious judgment to make. The matter should go to appeal because I do not think that the conclusions of Lord Justice Keene in the Meyrick case should be allowed to stand, regardless of what we might do to the Bill tonight, for the reasons that we have described. The Government are going a little further than they need to. I want the criteria for national park designation to be as they were prior to the Meyrick judgment. I am worried that the Lords amendments, especially Lords amendment No. 17, could open the criteria wider than that and give scope for applications for the designation of areas that most of us would not describe as having the special qualities that a national park should have. For those reasons, I will press amendment (a) to a Division. Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 380.